1. The Field of the Invention
The invention relates to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair surgery. More precisely, the present invention relates to implants and instruments for double bundle ACL repair, and methods of use.
It is generally accepted in the field of orthopedic surgery that the anterior cruciate ligament does not heal itself after injury. Initial attempts at repair of this ligament resulted in nearly uniform failure of the ligament to stabilize the knee joint.
Over the course of the last four decades, practitioners have turned to methods of ligament reconstruction in attempts to restore knee stability and normal knee kinematics. Most surgeons have become proficient with a ligament reconstruction technique involving autograft or allograft replacement of the native ACL. Autografts, which are harvested from the patient's own body, may comprise bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB), hamstring tendon (HT), or occasionally quadriceps tendon (QT). Allografts, which are harvested from a donor, may comprise patellar tendon, quadriceps tendon, Achilles tendon, tibialis anterior tendon, hamstring tendons, or occasionally peroneal tendons. Any of these grafts may be placed so that it traverses the intercondylar notch and its ends rest within tibial and femoral bone tunnels.
Two important surgical factors in achieving a stable, fully functional, pain-free knee after ACL reconstruction are correct placement of the femoral and tibial tunnels, so that the ACL graft does not impinge the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) or the roof of the intercondylar notch, and the use of slip-resistant, stiff, strong fixation for the ends of the graft.
Tibial and femoral bone tunnel placement has been a very controversial topic. Anterior placement of the femoral tunnel has become generally accepted as a technical cause of graft failure. Recently, after years of transtibial placement of the femoral bone tunnel, it has become increasingly popular to drill the femoral tunnel separately (i.e., through a medial arthroscopic portal). This may result in more anatomic placement of the femoral tunnel and improved graft orientation.
There are currently many options for graft fixation. Many surgeons who prefer BPTB grafts use interference screw fixation. However, among surgeons who prefer soft tissue grafts, a wide variety of fixation devices are used with little consensus as to what is best. Soft tissue graft fixation can be broadly divided into interference screw-based fixation, cortical fixation, and cross pin fixation.
Interference screw-based fixation of soft tissue grafts may be used in the femur and tibia. This type of fixation generates friction between the graft and the bone tunnel. Many surgeons who were originally trained in BPTB grafts continue to use this method of fixation when they use soft tissue grafts. Metal and bioabsorbable interference screws are currently available. However, there are no interference screws that have demonstrated bony ingrowth, which would be beneficial over the long term.
Cortical fixation may be preferred by surgeons who primarily use soft tissue grafts. A number of devices are known to take advantage of the innate strength of cortical bone. As early as 1966, German surgeon Helmut Brückner described an ACL reconstruction technique in which a BPTB graft was secured by sutures to a button resting on the lateral aspect of the lateral femoral condyle. Other examples of cortical fixation devices include Endobutton™ (Smith and Nephew) and EZLoc™ (Biomet). Cortical fixation devices have been shown to have some of the highest pullout strengths of any soft tissue graft fixation device. In the femur, these devices may comprise an extracortical anchor attached to a fabric or suture loop. Such a device may be used by draping the graft over the fabric loop, supporting the anchor against the exterior cortical surface so that the graft is suspended within the tunnel, and securing the fabric loop to the anchor. In the tibia, cortical fixation may be achieved by stitching sutures to the free ends of the graft, placing a screw through the anterior tibial cortex, tying the sutures around the screw, and compressing the sutures against the cortex with a washer.
Cross-pin fixation has been gaining in popularity, at least in part because of the perception that it may provide secure fixation closer to the tunnel aperture than that provided by cortical fixation. Cross-pin fixation may be achieved by passing a pin across a bone tunnel close to the aperture and draping the graft over the pin where it crosses the tunnel.
Although there may be little evidence that aperture fixation provides greater stability than does cortical fixation, many surgeons prefer aperture fixation because it may avoid the so-called “bungee effect” of cortical fixation devices. This theory presumes that an ACL reconstruction spanning a longer distance between fixation points will have greater elasticity than an ACL reconstruction spanning a shorter distance. Fixation closer to the joint space may provide higher stability than remote fixation at the cortex because the distance across the joint space is much less than the distance between extracortical fixation points. However, a 2005 meta-analysis of stability after ACL reconstruction showed cortical fixation to be associated with the highest rates of ACL reconstruction stability for soft tissue grafts.
There may be biomechanical evidence that aperture fixation may lead to increased graft stiffness. On the tibia, distal cortical fixation of a soft tissue ACL graft may be stronger, stiffer, and more slip resistant than is aperture fixation with an interference screw alone. The use of an interference screw alone may cause tunnel widening and may prevent circumferential tendon-tunnel healing, which may result in inferior strength and stiffness at 4 weeks compared with cortical fixation. However, the insertion of a bone dowel alongside a tendon graft in the tunnel, in conjunction with distal cortical fixation, may prevent tunnel widening, increase stiffness, promote circumferential healing, and simplify revision surgery.
Aggressive, brace-free rehabilitation with early weight bearing may be safe following high-stiffness, slip-resistant fixation. The high stiffness provided by distal cortical fixation may reduce the graft tension required to restore stability and may lower graft tension during open-chain exercise. Reducing the graft tension without increasing anterior laxity requires high-stiffness fixation which also resists slipping and tension loss during aggressive rehabilitation. Whipstitch-post tibial cortical fixation was the first fixation method used successfully for quadrupled hamstring grafts. Simple interference screw fixation has had mixed results, while interference screw fixation combined with cortical fixation has shown very good results. Similarly, interference screw-based methods such as the Intrafix™ (DePuy Mitek) appear to be promising constructs on the tibial side. Although cross-pin fixation on the tibial side may be popular among surgeons, there is a paucity of clinical data pertaining to it, and the clinical series that have been published to date have shown mixed results.
Despite advancements in single bundle ACL reconstruction, a review of the literature demonstrates that between 10% and 30% of patients report persistent instability following single bundle ACL reconstruction surgery. Among single bundle ACL reconstructions, only 70% of KT1000 test results demonstrate a <2 mm side-to-side difference, with a failure rate of 5% to 10%. The return-to-sport rate for single bundle restorations is only 60% to 70%.
Anatomic studies reveal that the ACL has two functional bundles: the anteromedial (AM) bundle and the posterolateral (PL) bundle. The bundles are named according to their tibial insertion sites. With the knee in extension, the AM and PL bundles are parallel to each other and are oriented generally along the mechanical axis of the leg. When the knee is flexed to 90 degrees, the AM and PL bundles are crossed. This occurs because the PL bundle femoral insertion site is posterior to the AM bundle femoral insertion site when the knee is in extension, and anterior to the AM bundle femoral insertion site when the knee is flexed to 90 degrees. In other words, the AM bundle femoral insertion site rotates over the PL bundle femoral insertion site as the knee flexes. As a result, each bundle makes a unique contribution to knee kinematics at different knee flexion angles. In extension, the PL bundle tightens and the AM bundle relaxes, whereas in flexion, the AM bundle tightens as the PL bundle becomes lax. The AM bundle is the primary restraint against anterior tibial translation and the PL bundle tends to stabilize the knee in full extension, particularly against rotational loads.
Anatomic double bundle ACL reconstruction has some logical rationales in its favor and is supported by biomechanical studies. These studies suggest that conventional single bundle ACL reconstruction may successfully restore anteroposterior knee stability, but the reconstructed knee may be unable to resist combined rotatory loads. Cadaveric studies of double bundle knee reconstructions reveal a closer restoration of normal knee kinematics and better rotational stability. A closer restoration of normal knee kinematics may be associated with improved functional outcomes following ACL reconstruction.
Reciprocal tensile behavior has long been a quest of the surgeon who performs ACL reconstructions and has been a rationale for pursuing the double bundle technique. The concept is that the AM bundle should carry more tension in flexion and the PL bundle should carry more tension in extension. A doubled-over soft tissue graft in a single tunnel may restore reciprocal tensile behavior if the tunnel has been placed to avoid PCL and roof impingement and the centers of the graft bundles can be separated and appropriately oriented at the femoral and tibial tunnel apertures.
Double bundle ACL reconstruction is not without its drawbacks. The most common cause of failure of any kind of ACL reconstruction is improper bone tunnel position. The double bundle procedure, which is more complex than the single bundle technique, may be expected to have more misplaced tunnels. For example, dual tunnels can interfere with each other when they are not meticulously positioned. In particular, a poorly positioned PL tunnel may displace a subsequently formed AM tunnel too far anteriorly, resulting in roof impingement and potential graft rupture.
The double bundle procedure has other potential disadvantages. The greater complexity of double bundle repair results in longer surgical time. Two separate grafts need to be prepared, four tunnels need to be prepared, and four separate fixation devices are required.
Suitable femoral fixation options may be limited. Currently, the EndoButton™ may be the most common femoral fixation device for a double bundle ACL reconstruction due to its low profile. Cross-pin femoral fixation may not be feasible for double bundle ACL reconstruction due to anatomical constraints in the vicinity of the femoral tunnel apertures.
The larger tibial footprint of a double bundle ACL reconstruction offers greater potential for femoral notch impingement by the graft. Larger cross-sectional areas of graft tissue traverse the intercondylar notch in a double bundle ACL reconstruction. This may result in PCL impingement as well as notch impingement simply due to the size of the grafts. PCL impingement has been seen even in single bundle ACL reconstructions. PCL impingement may occur when the tibial tunnel is placed in a vertical orientation at an angle >70 degrees from the medial joint line of the tibia and the femoral tunnel is then drilled through the tibial tunnel. Vertical placement of the ACL graft at the apex of the femoral notch may cause the graft to wrap around the PCL, which may cause high tension in the graft when the knee is flexed. High graft tension in flexion may cause the graft to stretch out or may prevent the patient from regaining full knee flexion. Preventing PCL impingement in single bundle ACL reconstructions requires a femoral notchplasty as well as placement of the femoral tunnel further down the sidewall of the intercondylar notch. PCL impingement may not be an issue with double bundle reconstructions, because the femoral tunnels may be placed in the anatomic footprint of the ACL through an inferomedial arthroscopic portal. However, when two femoral tunnels are separated by a bone bridge (often 2 mm wide), the composite area may extend outside the border of the anatomic ACL footprint. This effectively increases the cross-sectional area of the graft and “overstuffs the notch.” Furthermore, the cross-sectional area of the native ACL as it crosses the PCL is approximately 54.4 square mm, and may be significantly less in smaller people. Therefore, if double bundle ACL reconstruction with a standard size graft is performed with dual femoral and tibial tunnels, the effective cross-sectional area of the graft may exceed 100 square mm. Notch or PCL impingement, loss of knee flexion and eventual stretching and failure of the tissue may result.
Revision is also more difficult with double bundle ACL reconstruction than with single bundle ACL reconstruction. A significant volume of bone is consumed with a four tunnel technique. It may be problematic to place revision tunnels anatomically if there is no bone into which to drill. In order to ensure correct graft placement at the time of revision, a bone grafting procedure may be required to fill the vacant bone tunnels, followed by a second procedure to revise the ACL reconstruction.
Thus, there exists a need in the art for novel ACL reconstruction devices that provide the strength of cortical fixation, the stiffness of aperture fixation, and osteoconductivity for bony ingrowth to allow circumferential healing of the graft/tunnel interface. There also exists a need for a method of fixation that separates an ACL graft into bundles such that knee kinematics are restored without the need for separate bone tunnels and multiple soft tissue grafts. There also exists a need in the art for an ACL reconstruction technique that produces bone tunnels that more closely replicate the anatomic femoral and tibial ACL footprints, uses a single graft separated into bundles to restore the kinematics of the native ACL, and eliminates the problems of increased surgical time and complexity, difficult revision, notch impingement and PCL impingement that are inherent with the current double tunnel, double bundle ACL technique. There also exists a need in the art to provide a fixation implant that can be used to deliver specific therapeutic agents, such as biochemicals that allow for tendon to bone healing or enhance osteoinductivity such that bone may grow into the fixation implant.